Machiavellian said:
Anyone can find some stat that supports their theory. Having multiple sources makes your theory more legit. Only having one source allows others to find many holes in it as people have done in this thread. Here is my point about questions. I can ask you a question like this. Are there any policies that President Obama instituted that you do not like. No matter who the president is or what your affiliation, you probably have a few policies you did not like. The stat tracking company can then say, 90% of people polled do not like the President Policies. This is what I mean by understanding exactly what questions are asked and how they are asked. Without that data, anyone can construe their data any way they want. Political parties have been doing stuff like this for years and its also done within certain stats tracking agencies as well. As for your Nielsen study, here is one that was posted why people purchase a PS4 over the X1. From this study it seems Price more than anything else was the big difference. http://www.neowin.net/news/nielsen-study-finds-a-third-of-ps4-owners-switched-from-xbox-or-wii Here is a blub from that article. So what did Sony do right in order to sell 10 million consoles and make gamers choose the PS4 instead of the Xbox One? The main reason behind Sony's success seems to be the price difference between the two consoles at launch. Having a $100 cheaper price tag, the $399 PS4 and the Xbox One offered mainly cross-platform titles including CoD: Ghosts, Assassin's Creed IV and Battlefield 4 at launch. Having the same range of games available, the figures indicate the Kinect bundled Xbox One wasn't enough to justify the $100 difference for many gamers. In a logical move, Microsoft released the cheaper and Kinect-free Xbox One bundle half a year later. As stated, anyone can find data to support their theory. The key difference is knowing if your data paints a complete picture. I am saying your one point of data does not paint a complete picture and the reason is that you only use one source because you already formed your opinion and only sourght to justify it instead of being a good research and really checking to see if its valid. |
I've taken research classes before. I know how methodology works, byut thanks for the explanation.
The problem I have with your objection, and most xbox people here, is that in the times when we only have certain amount of information, they discredit it. This is a major problem with this website, because we are a sales site. Most people come here to discuss the information we have and what it means and try to predict what the data will mean in the future. Nielsen and infoscout are two sources that back each others information up in terms of age demographic. Not many other places do polling to see what people buy in lines. So, getting the information to back up a prediction that will be accepted by opponents is very difficult. It's really not fair of you to make an argument against a set of data by saying the data is worthless.
Importantly, your objections to the methodology isn't very pointed. Which questions are you objecting to? Who is buying the presents for whom? Again, like I said, this data has been supported for many years now data that continues to repeat itself. Even google agrees with the data when it comes to smartphones. ie; they've found that female gamers aged 35 are now the biggest demographic, and that's because they play mobile casual games. They were also the second largest demographic on the wii. Coincidence that both platforms hosted primarily simply casual styled games? It's not.
The reason why ps gamers tend to be older than xbox ones is pretty simple and strightforward. It's because they grew up on playstation. Really the main demographic that started on xbox was the 360 generation. PS has been going since the ps1, and the age of their fans reflect that, and is supported by how many ps fans there are. With over 250m consoles in the first 2 gens, you're going to have a strong fanbase. This is why ps3 was able to outsell x360 YoY despite having lackluster games for the first two years.
Additionally, the data that shows people purchased was based on price is just a simple conclusion because the study size wasn't encompassing enough to cover other options.
Say for example you have a study about red green blindness, and your testing considers visual acuity. The only thing your results can conclude is something to do with visual acuity, nothing else. In the study you posted, the only data they used was pricing and sales. To be taken seriously, all they can really conclude is that price is a factor.
However, we now know that when x1 dropped to match price, we discovered that ps4 continued to outsell it. This would say, "ok, price might still be a factor, but there must be something else as well because mathematically, if price was 100% of the equation, then x1 sales would be higher". And so now we can theorize what other factors there might be. It might be brand strength. It might be the small power difference. It might be the games available. It might be word of mouth. Each factor would now need to be tested seperately, and then a meta could compile all the information to attempt to determine the individual weight of each factor.
Difference in price is not a main factor, but we do know from data that price POINT is. It could simply be that x1 reach a price point that made consumers determine the purchase as valued. But determining whether they determined it was MORE valuable than ps4 isn't conclusive. In simple terms, it might not be that x1 sold more because it was cheaper than ps4, but because it was cheaper than what consumers thought was the going value for the x1. Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm not a newb to research and methodology standards. I thought about the OP a lot before I did the data, and made my conclusions based on the available data.
If you want to just wipe the board with my data, go ahead, but I'm pretty sure I know what's going to happen because I trust the data. It is backed by as many sources as are humanly available, and the data has held year over year since the start of last gen. Demographics and "who is buying for who" has been consistent for almost ten years. If you disagree, that is your perogative.
